Off Topic Poker Forums

Even though you haven't answered any question I've posed you yet, let me ask you this - do you consider it stealing to take the magazine off the rack and walk away with it without paying? If so, why? And what would be the purpose of taking the magazine and going home?

Yes, to answer the single question you have asked (sorry, but I really do feel like I have answered your points to some degree steppin, but if you pm me -- , I will try harder and post the answers in this forum) it is theft to walk out of a store with the magazine. The purpose? Maybe you hate the magazine, and don't want others to purchase it? I mean, I don't know other's reasons for breaking the law. Should I?

But if you adhere to strict sense of morals it would seem to be theft if you read the entire contents of the magazine that interest you, IF you were intending to buy it if you could not read it instead.

IF you were browsing through the magazine with the mind set of "Hey, maybe I will browse through the articles and I will see if one interests me, then maybe I will see enough value to actually buy it" then the "free sample" business model seems appropriate to me.

which

So theft is theft, eh? Stealing a baby is equally as bad as stealing a pack of gum? Armed robbery is the same as pickpocketing?

Answer to another of Steppin's questions:

yes, theft is theft. Stealing x = stealing Stealing y = stealing

this does not mean x=y

but I am not in a logical mood today

interesting that when folks talk about morals they never want to be held to strict standards. It becomes a matter of "well that is not so bad, after all we could have taken a baby". Really?

which

Steppin---

I don't know how second hand book stores work, they may in fact pay royalty-type payments. But the author did get compensated for that copy of the book. Make another copy of it though, and he's only been compensated for one of them.

is the value of the book solely in the paper it is printed on? Or have I consumed the book by reading it? It seems you are suggesting that the value is in the strict physicality of the book.

If Improva decided to advertise on DC about his book, and I post, "Hey, I already read this book, and you can have it for 1/2 off" am I not hurting his income from his intellectual endeavour?

Would the argument now go to whether I have an electronic version, or a paperback? I do not really see much difference to the economic impact to Improva?

The electronic debate always talks about copying, right? Well, what about if I send the file to the buyer for 50% of Improva's asking price, but then delete my file. I only have one file, I sent it. Now I have none. I AM allowed to sell physical books to used book stores. Should I not be allowed to sell my electronic property?

If you are saying that it is not just the paper it is written on, but rather the worth of the book is in the knowledge/entertainment/content as well------

then isn't the second hand market for books taking sales away from Improva? If everywhere he posts ads for his electronic book, what if I post an ad for 1/2 off, and I send a 'real' book. I bought my real books from folks who had electronic copies legally sent from Improva. When they sold me their electronic books, they deleted their files. I have the only copy they purchased. I make my money from printing up my copy, deleting the file, and the second hand sales I generate from these 'real' books.. Is each person who buys my 'real' book allowed to go to second hand bookstores to sell their copy, so that the stores can now legally sell, buy back, sell, buy back forever.

If you stand there reading the whole [magazine] article, I think [it is theft]. It's not a major crime, but there's a reason newsstand vendors would tell you to buy it or put it down.

so would the thief be the 'reader' of the article only? What if the vendor allowed you to read the magazine entirely? I mean, the business model for magazines is that the unsold ones do not get paid for (AFAIK) So, is Barnes and Noble obligated to the magazine suppliers to be somewhat vigilant and enforce the " buy it or put it down" business model?

which

I think everyone should just realize that the internet has allowed for media to be accessed+distributed for free(file sharing) by millions of people that potentially could never have figured out about that media without the internet. Also understand the diffusion of responsibility that comes with pirating, I admit to downloading a lot of music illegally but I would never have the audacity to go into a store and steal a CD. I don't really feel bad when I download an album from a musician who's a millionaire b/c if I'm downloading their stuff I will likely pay them at some point by going to their concert, buying merch etc...

I do think it's kind of fucked up to steal from someone that is publishing a book for a really specific audience with a lot of personal investment into said book. It's basically the same view where I wouldn't feel as bad stealing something from Wal-Mart as I would stealing something from a mom and pop corner store.

The electronic debate always talks about copying, right? Well, what about if I send the file to the buyer for 50% of Improva's asking price, but then delete my file. I only have one file, I sent it. Now I have none. I AM allowed to sell physical books to used book stores. Should I not be allowed to sell my electronic property?

What you should do is weigh the pros and cons of the product. If the price is too high then simply don't buy the product. Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

When I cease entertaining myself I will
edit: to clarify I mean entertaining myself with the arguing, not that I'm 'entertaining myself' right now

hahaha

I simply don't understand how anyone, regardless of the security measures, ability to enforce said measures, medium, etc., can think it is ok to take something they didn't pay for and actually try to justify it with a myriad of excuses. To those in that camp, where is your sense of right and wrong? Who the F cares about the logistics of it all? It is wrong to take something that someone is selling if you didn't pay for it. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. The fact that the seller should continue to innovate because people like you are forcing them to do so does not make it right that you take their stuff.

I'm done now. Clearly those who think they can take what is not theirs are not going to change their minds because it would be far too inconvenient. I mean, at the end of the day, why not sacrifice your integrity for an episode of Breaking Bad?

+1. And that doesn't happen often I do that.

But hell. People justify their bad behaviour all the time.
'Its crazy you have to drive that speed on that road', "she deserved to be slapped in the face, that bitch", "she wasn't THAT young.... plus she acted really like a grown up", "if people make shit expensive, and I need it, I steal it"

Whats new.

What you should do is weigh the pros and cons of the product. If the price is too high then simply don't buy the product. Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

Improva,

thanks for weighing in on this. As an author you surely have more of 'a dog in this fight' than we do. I hope you realize it is nothing personal (although it may feel very personal), it being your book just adds another layer to the debate. As Chuck said, people feel differently based on 'who' is involved.

But.... my point above was about second hand stores and 'property rights'. In the US, I AM allowed to sell my book to a second hand store, where they recirculate an author's work forever. I do not see much difference legally, or morally between the future transactions at this same store and a digital copy being passed around. The argument that it is only a single book rather than 2 digital copies just does not seem relevant. Your work is bought less often because there is another market that is offering it at a better perceived value.

If the second hand book store resells your book, buys it back, resells, buys, resells, etc etc etc... could you explain the difference economically to you, the author, as opposed to someone making a digital copy and people who want to read it downloading it for free?

If the only difference in your opinion is the physical possession of print on paper, then in my opinion you are devaluing your creative efforts. IMO a book and its value is far more in the content.

A big problem I have with those who claim digital piracy is so bad is that they take one particular type of 'creative transfer', assign their own values to it, never considering the other forms of transfer (giving these forms their blessing, either ignorantly or not) and feel so much better for it.

thanks again for your patience with us.

which


'

Just chiming in to clear things up - Improva's point was that with his book for example, you agree to not distribute it, just as he agrees to provide the service and book. This is completely different when compared to normal books. Per the agreement, you are NOT allowed to distribute his book.

Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

This may be too close to the subject matter for you to feel impartially about Improva, but what if I am not a buyer? Do I still have terms and conditions ?

By downloading the copy of the book, am I obligated to adhere to the requirements of the person who offers it, or the author/vendor (if they are one and the same), who I never interacted with at all?

Those who say "It's stealing to take a book from a store without paying for it" never address the content. It is the physical book itself, and its future availability to others that is impacted, and thus is addressed with legal sanctions, and their outrage.

Naw hinted at this in the very beginning of this thread : No one really cared to address it, or even think about it much, I suspect. Doesn't fit the paradigm.

i cannot steal something when you have lost nothing, in particular the fabled "lost sale," when i never intended to buy it

which

Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

I agree that the seller has conditions, and the buyer has obligations. Wouldn't the moral outrage, if warranted, be better aimed at those who offer the product digitally for free, rather than those who do the downloading ???

I have yet to hear anyone on this thread even mention those who are offering your book to be downloaded.

Curious, isn't it, that this part never ever enters the discussion.

which

edit: except for TSB, just now, 14 pages in (good point TSB, thanks)

This may be too close to the subject matter for you to feel impartially about Improva, but what if I am not a buyer? Do I still have terms and conditions ?

By downloading the copy of the book, am I obligated to adhere to the requirements of the person who offers it, or the author/vendor (if they are one and the same), who I never interacted with at all?

The download is illegal because it violates the copyright.

But.... my point above was about second hand stores and 'property rights'. In the US, I AM allowed to sell my book to a second hand store, where they recirculate an author's work forever. I do not see much difference legally, or morally between the future transactions at this same store and a digital copy being passed around. The argument that it is only a single book rather than 2 digital copies just does not seem relevant. Your work is bought less often because there is another market that is offering it at a better perceived value.

So because there is a potential flaw in a system out there, rather than think how this flaw could be rectified so as to be more fair to the author, you just use it as carte blanche to go and take things you want but are not willing to pay for for free?

Do you think that finding a loophole somewhere and using it as justification to do what you like regardless of the law, wishes of the author etc is moral?

Some of the reaching for justification and frankly ridiculous analogies to try to back up the points made in here are laughable. The bottom line is, Improva created a product which took a lot of time and effort, which contains potentially very valuable information which will be beneficial to the user financially if applied correctly, with the expressed intention of selling it for financial remuneration. You have unilaterally decided that this is somehow wrong and created ridiculous justifications to back up your theft. I'm sure Improva is fully aware and to a point accepting that piracy will continue to happen and can't be stopped, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending you are morally correct and people like Improva are stuck in the past and need to embrace the fact that their work will be stolen.

The download is illegal because it violates the copyright.

taken from Wikipedia:

Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft. Although piracy[/] connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic, emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with theft.[1]

in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.

[b]Countries where sharing files without profit is legal

Downloading copied music is legal in some countries in the context of the copyright, such as Canada,[18] The Netherlands,[19] Spain,[20] and Panama, provided that the songs are not sold.

In Canada it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for noncommercial use, but it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).[21]

So apparently morality depends on which country you live in? Hmmmm, that could go another 14 pages

which

So because there is a potential flaw in a system out there, rather than think how this flaw could be rectified so as to be more fair to the author, you just use it as carte blanche to go and take things you want but are not willing to pay for for free?

So, you consider second hand bookstores to be a "flaw in a system"?

My point was that they exist, legally, with acceptance from society, and I missed your explanations relating to the questions arising from them.

I did not miss the posturing and "holier than thou" though.

which